The Original Public Meaning of Amendment in the Origination Clause versus the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

British Journal of American Legal Studies, Vol. 6(2), 2017

61 Pages Posted: 16 May 2016 Last revised: 22 Feb 2018

Date Written: May 16, 2016

Abstract

Robert Natelson recently published his article, The Founders’ Origination Clause and Implications for the Affordable Care Act, in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. This article argued the original understanding of the scope of the Senate’s power to amend the House of Representatives' bills for raising revenue in the Origination Clause permits complete substitutes that are new bills for raising revenue, such as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). The original understanding of a constitutional word or provision is what the ratifiers of the Constitution thought was the meaning of the word or provision. When the Senate originated PPACA as an amendment to the House’s Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009, the Senate replaced the entire House bill, except for the bill’s number, with PPACA.

I consider the original public meaning — not the original understanding — of a constitutional word or provision, unless unrecoverable, to be the controlling meaning of that word or provision. The original public meaning is the meaning that a “reasonable speaker of English” during the founding era would have ascribed to the word or provision.

My article argues the original public meaning of amendment is clear and disallows complete substitutes. For instance, founding-era dictionaries indicate an amendment was a change or alteration to something that transformed the thing from bad to better. This definition suggests an amendment must not be a complete substitute because an amendment must preserve at least a part of the thing being amended so that there is something to transform from bad to better.

My article further argues the preponderance of evidence suggests the original understanding of the scope of an amendment actually disallows complete substitutes. For example, much evidence from the Philadelphia Convention, Confederation Congress, state legislatures, and state conventions suggests the dominant view among the founders was that an amendment to the Articles of Confederation, the legal compact between 13 states enacted in 1781, could not be a complete substitute.

My conclusion argues PPACA or any other such complete substitute violates the original public meaning of the scope of an amendment.

Keywords: Amendment, Origination Clause, Original Public Meaning, Original Understanding, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Constitution, Articles of Confederation, Complete Substitutes, Reasonable Speakers of English, Ratifiers

Suggested Citation

Smyth, Daniel, The Original Public Meaning of Amendment in the Origination Clause versus the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (May 16, 2016). British Journal of American Legal Studies, Vol. 6(2), 2017. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2778311

Daniel Smyth (Contact Author)

LibertyBlog.org

Rockville, MD 20850
United States

Register to save articles to
your library

Register

Paper statistics

Downloads
61
rank
332,576
Abstract Views
711
PlumX